• via Alberto da Giussano, 26, 20145 Milano
  • +39 02 4003 1253
  • info@studiolegalebianucci.it
  • Criminal Lawyer, Family Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer

Commentary on Judgment No. 15852 of 2023: Preventive Seizure and the Right to a Hearing

Judgment No. 15852 of February 28, 2023, represents an important intervention by Italian jurisprudence regarding real precautionary measures, particularly concerning preventive seizure. This measure, as established by Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, primarily aims to ensure the effectiveness of any confiscation of assets at the end of the criminal proceedings. However, the judgment in question clarifies the limits of this precautionary measure, emphasizing the right to a hearing for the interested party.

The Regulatory Context and the Judgment

The Court declared the order of the Court of Santa Maria Capua Vetere illegitimate, which had confirmed a preventive seizure for confiscation purposes. The reasoning behind this decision lies in the violation of the defendant's right to a hearing, as they cannot be deprived of the opportunity to contest the reasons for the seizure. In particular, the Court highlighted that the Court did not merely integrate the reasoning of the contested decree but effectively adopted a different seizure order, in violation of the procedural guarantees provided by law.

Preventive seizure issued for preventive purposes - Confirmation in the review for confiscation purposes - Legitimacy - Exclusion - Reasons. The order by which the Court, in the review of the preventive seizure ordered upon the request of the public prosecutor pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, confirms the real precautionary measure for confiscation purposes pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is illegitimate, as in doing so it does not merely integrate the reasoning of the contested decree, but substantially adopts a different seizure measure to the detriment of the interested party's right to a hearing.

The Implications of the Judgment

The consequences of this judgment are significant for the protection of defendants' rights. In fact, it emphasizes that preventive seizure, while being a fundamental tool in combating crime, cannot disregard the respect for fundamental rights. In particular, the right to a hearing must be guaranteed at every stage of the proceedings, and any decision that may affect this right must be adequately justified.

  • Strengthening the right to a hearing.
  • Need for clear and specific reasoning in seizure orders.
  • Possible repercussions on the validity of adopted precautionary measures.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 15852 of 2023 represents an important step towards a fairer justice system that respects the rights of defendants. It reaffirms the principle that precautionary measures, although necessary in certain contexts, must always be balanced with the right to a hearing and defense. The Court has provided an important clarification on how decisions regarding preventive seizure should be made, highlighting the importance of reasoning and respect for procedural guarantees.